Latest update April 6th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- Gov’t rejected three cheaper Chinese bids to finance, construct gas plant
- Corentyne mom kills 7-year-old daughter, injures infant son
- Trump threatens ‘hell’ for Iran over Hormuz Strait as deadline approaches
- US$214M still with Exxon – AFC warns of quiet deal as audit dispute drags on
- Govt. launches border patrol unit in Region Nine
Some damning discoveries by an analyst
Dear Editor,
Two letters, one on June 19, 2018 and another on June 21, 2018 by a Banking and Economics Analyst were published in your newspaper. The June 19 letter analyzed the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry’s (GBTI) performance for 2017.
Compared to 2016, after tax profits were shown to be down, loans and advances declined, non-performing loans stood at 24.5% of its total loan portfolio. And most disturbing was that $11.8 billion of bad loans were under-provided for by $4.4 billion. The analyst posited that the profits declared were therefore not real, a practice known as “creative accounting”, in essence, “management fraud.”
The letter also mentioned that GBTI was mired in a massive fraud, close to $1 billion in 2017. It was also embroiled in controversial matters involving the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU). In the June 21 letter, the said analyst contended that GBTI was in breach of good banking ethics and corporate governance principles.
To support this, he charges that GBTI does not have an independent Board of Directors. The directors are either handpicked by the bank’s major shareholders, the Beharrys, or are from the related companies of the said family. Further, the board’s chairman, Robin Stoby S.C., is the bank’s lawyer and legal representative, which is a conflict of interest.
The Analyst also mentions that DIDCO, a client of GBTI, lost the KFC franchise. The Beharry Co. bought it and thus insider information may have been at play here. Then again, GBTI was controversially pushing for a discredited banker from Trinidad, Larry Nath, to head the bank here. Why?
The analyst also asked if it were ethical to have branches of NALICO/NAFICO owned by the Beharry Group, located at most of GBTI’s operations. Now Editor, these letters by the analyst raise very serious and alarming issues and allegations that need to be addressed by those responsible.
I was waiting to hear a response from some very involved and related parties. However, there has been a deafening silence from GBTI’s auditors, its shareholders, the bank itself and most importantly, the Bank of Guyana (BOG). Why is there no public statement from the governor of BOG?
I know he is not averse to public statements. He recently commented on the low interest offerings to depositors at the commercial banks as well as the unauthorized collection of foreign currency payments for local transactions by business houses.
Mr. Editor, the BOG is an autonomous entity with the legislative authority to regulate, supervise and ensure that financial institutions comply with banking regulations. Furthermore, the Financial Institutions Act 1995 makes provision for the “prevention of the abuse of financial institutions by insiders, enhance corporate governance and strengthen the powers of the bank to deal with problematic licensed financial institutions.”
In light of the analyst’s revelations, what has BOG done?
Perhaps the analyst should demand an enquiry by BOG into the matters he raised regarding the operations of GBTI. The credibility of our entire banking sector is at stake.
Yours faithfully,
Rustum Bulkan
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
